Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed a sentencing memorandum Tuesday with the federal court in Washington, D.C. that recommends General Michael Flynn receive no jail time after pleading guilty to the crime of lying to the FBI, citing “substantial” assistance to the government in its investigations.

The mainstream media interpreted that remark as evidence that Flynn gave Mueller key information against President Donald Trump and Russian “collusion.”

More likely, however, Mueller’s request reflects the fact that Flynn did not actually commit the crime to which he pleaded guilty. No less than then-FBI director James Comey told Congress last March that Flynn had not, in fact, lied to the FBI.

If Flynn had demanded a trial on the merits, he could have subpoenaed Comey in his defense. The Special Counsel likely pressured Flynn to cooperate using other accusations — against him, or perhaps his family.

It is not clear exactly what information Flynn provided Mueller. The only other crime referenced in the sentencing document is Flynn’s failure to register as a foreign agent for Turkey.

Again, though, that is rather flimsy. It is rare that anyone in Washington is prosecuted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and rarer still that anyone is pursued under the Logan Act, which was the reason Flynn was under surveillance in the first place.

In fact, the most explosive piece of information in the sentencing document is not about collusion with Russians, but about the collusion between the media, the intelligence services, and the outgoing members of the Obama administration.

The document begins its recitation of Flynn’s offenses by citing information that had appeared in the Washington Post from a leaked, classified surveillance transcript in which Flynn’s name had been “unmasked”:

Days prior to the FBI’s interview of the defendant, the Washington Post had published a story alleging that he had spoken with Russia’s ambassador to the United States on December 29, 2016, the day the United States announced sanctions and other measures against Russia in response to that government’s actions intended to interfere with the 2016 election (collectively, “sanctions”). See David Ignatius, Why did Obama Dawdle on Russia’s hacking?, WASH. POST (Jan. 12, 2017).

That information, the document suggests, led the FBI to interview Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017 — the conversation in which he did not (according to Comey) lie to them, but which landed him in trouble.

The government had the surveillance transcripts, and it knew what Flynn had told the Russian ambassador. But the Post‘s intervention was crucial in setting the trap in which to ensnare Flynn and turn him into a government witness.

Mueller’s sentencing document does not mention the fact that the information published in the Post was illegally leaked to the press by the intelligence services. And the reason that happened was that the outgoing Obama administration changed the rules on the sharing of classified surveillance among government agencies, weakening privacy protections, probably intending that such information be more difficult to keep secret, and easier to leak.

Moreover, someone in the Obama administration — we do not yet know who, though it had to be someone senior — “unmasked” Flynn’s name to make sure he was exposed.

So while we do not yet know Mueller’s next moves, what the Flynn sentencing document reinforces is the that the Russia collusion investigation was tainted from the start by a crime committed against Flynn himself — with the collusion of the media, the deep state, and Obama’s loyalists.

After much anticipation and speculation, pop mega-star Lady Gaga’s Super Bowl LI halftime show performance was largely devoid of partisan politics — much to the chagrin of myriad liberal media and entertainment reporters.

Journalists from some of the country’s biggest news outlets raked the “Bad Romance” singer over the coals for failing to bash President Donald Trump’s immigration and national security policies, specifically his controversial refugee moratorium.

Below is a roundup of some of the most disappointed reactions from a liberal media upset that Lady Gaga delivered a non-political Super Bowl performance clearly intended to entertain all Americans.

Los Angeles Times reporter Mikael Wood scolded Gaga for failing to deliver “the kind of bold, banner-waving performance for which Lady Gaga is known (and loved).”

“Instead, the 30-year-old singer offered up a disappointing 12-minute medley that lacked any edge or tension yet also failed for the most part to deliver the kind of warm reassurance that [Tony] Bennett might’ve mustered.”

In the end, Wood says, Gaga’s was a “tightly choreographed production that did little to acknowledge the outside world.”

Variety TV critic Sonia Saraiya slammed Gaga for “steadfastly avoiding making a statement” during her “competent but disconnected performance.”

While praising Gaga’s set as “appropriately breathtaking,” Saraiya says the show “was overall a little weak, it still felt like a missed opportunity” to “voice the widely held frustration with the Trump administration in some form or another.”

Saraiya adds:

“Born This Way,” Gaga’s anthem for gay rights, has aged poorly — the song rhymes “chola descent” with “you’re orient,” which is both ethnically and grammatically offensive, and includes the adjective “transgendered.” But even a problematic love letter to queer acceptance would have been worthwhile, at a Super Bowl Vice President Mike Pence was attending… if it had been the showstopping final number.

3. The Washington Post: “Lady Gaga calls herself a rebel, but at the Super Bowl she played it safe”

WaPo pop music critic Chris Richards railed against Gaga for not “speaking out” and being too “restrained” during her Super Bowl LI halftime show.

“She played it totally safe,” Richards wrote of Gaga. “But for an artist who continues to sell herself as an instigator, Gaga seemed content being a mere entertainer on Sunday night, putting in plenty of effort without taking any significant risks. Like any Gaga concert, her halftime show cultivated a mood of bewildered wowee-zowee that aimed to impress more than surprise.”

Gaga proclaimed to be “I am a rebel… I always want to be challenging the status quo,” during a cameo in a Tiffany & Co. Super Bowl ad. “It felt like a lie,” Richards wrote.

“With a forceful elegance, Beyoncé had set a precedent for what could be done on this stage — musically and politically. By comparison, Gaga whiffed,” Richards wrote, praising last year’s anti-American Super Bowl halftime show by the “Lemonade” singer.

4. Billboard: “Lady Gaga Is a Legacy Artist Now, But What a Legacy: Super Bowl 2017 Halftime Show Analysis”

Billboard contributor Andrew Unterberger laments “if there was a disappointment to be had with Gaga’s performance, it wasn’t with the show or the song selection … but with the fact that she didn’t attempt anything particularly outrageous.”

Unterberber says it “doesn’t count” that Gaga sang “God Bless America” and “This Land Is Your Land.” Those weren’t the stuff of his kind of a “legitimate political statement.”

Gaga’s performance for Unterberger ultimately “fell an absolutely unforgettable moment short,” and “its general spirit was sadly missing; one such gonzo moment would’ve gone a long way toward reminding people why the art was just as important to Mother Monster’s early formula as the pop.”

5. The Huffington Post: “Lady Gaga Gave A Subtle Nod To The LGBTQ Community During Her Super Bowl Performance”

In an article predicated on the notion that middle, football-loving America is full of people who hate gays, HuffPo senior entertainment editor Stephanie Marcus struggles to find the anti-Trump messaging in Lady Gaga’s Super Bowl show.

“It wasn’t super political, but it was something,” Marcus writes.

“In the end, Gaga didn’t actually make any blatant political statement (aside from her opening number), but she did perform “Born This Way,” which celebrates individuality and takes a specifically pro-LGBTQ stance with the lyrics, “No matter gay, straight, or bi / Lesbian, transgendered life / I’m on the right track baby / I was born to survive,” Marcus explains.

Gainor: ‘Terrifying’ That Media Are Talking Openly About Assassinating Trump

Scumbag media should go to prison for talking about killing our president, damit!

Dan Gainor, the vice president of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center, joined Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Monday to discuss some of the media’s most egregious examples of bias.

“The idea that we can now have open discussion of an assassination … this is terrifying for me that we see media people talking about the assassination of the President,” said Gainor, while talking about a recent media incident reported by Breitbart News:

Times columnist and author India Knight has called for the assassination of U.S. President, Donald J. Trump.

During a days-long invective against the newly inaugurated President on Twitter in which Knight called Mr. Trump a “moron,” “mad,” “needy,” and an “arse,” among other things, before telling him to “shut up,” she mused, “The assassination is taking such a long time.

On Monday, Gainor continued, “And this is not the first time. British media people like to talk about assassinating the President.”

Talk radio hosts and bloggers may be included in White House press briefings

Talk radio hosts and bloggers could be given greater access to official White House press briefings once the Trump administration takes office, under a highly irregular proposal being floated that may also remove briefings from the West Wing.

Trump’s pick for White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, said on Sunday that due to “off the chart” interest in the new administration, the president-elect was considering moving briefings from the James S Brady press briefing room, which has been used by presidents to address the media since 1970, to a venue with a greater capacity.

A report published by Esquire magazine on Saturday indicated the venue could be inside the Old Executive Office Building, just west of the White House.

Spicer argued the proposal would mean “you can involve more people, be more transparent, have more accessibility”. He suggested that this would mean outlets that are not traditionally part of the White House press corps would be able to ask questions during presidential press briefings.

“There’s a lot of talk radio and bloggers and people that can’t fit in right now and maybe don’t have a permanency because they’re not part of the Washington elite media,” Spicer said, “but to allow them an opportunity to ask the press secretary or the president a question is a positive thing. It’s more democratic.”

Around 200 journalists make up the White House press corps. The Brady press briefing room holds 49 permanentseats for major media organisations, which are granted space by the White House reporters (WHCA). The Guardian is among those outlets allocated a space.

White House briefings are open any journalist that seeks access and passes security clearance, but the president more typically takes questions from major news organisations with an allocated seat.

It remains unclear how the proposal would be implemented, but it is likely to be interpreted as a hostile rebuke to conventional media outlets around the country.

Jeff Mason, the WHCA president and Reuters White House correspondent, said he had a “constructive”, nearly two-hour meeting with Spicer on Sunday. Mason “emphasized the importance of the White House press briefing room” and its proximity to West Wing officials.

“I made clear that the WHCA would view it as unacceptable if the incoming administration sought to move White House reporters out of the press work space behind the press briefing room,” Mason said in a statement. “Access in the West Wing to senior administration officials, including the press secretary, is critical to transparency and to journalists’ ability to do their jobs.”

Spicer agreed to discuss any changes to the current system with the WHCA, Mason said.

During a chaotic press conference at Trump Tower on Wednesday, the first the businessman has held since July 2016, hundreds of journalists crammed into a small pen as Trump frequently lambasted certain media organisations and occasionally individual reporters. Trump was incensed by reports on a leaked and unsubstantiated dossier, which alleged frequent contacts between his campaign team and Russian authorities, and suggested the Kremlin held compromising material that could be used to blackmail Trump.

Trump was also asked by a reporter at Breitbart News what his views were on media ethics and “fake news”, to which he replied: “Some of the media outlets that I deal with are fake news more so than anybody. I could name them, but I won’t bother. You have a few sitting right in front of us.

“They’re very, very dishonest people, but I think it’s just something we’re going to have to live with. I guess the advantage I have is that I can speak back.”

According to the Associated Press, Breitbart News, branded by critics as a racist, far-right news site, was the only media organisation to have a reserved seat in the front row for the conference. Steve Bannon, Trump’s incoming chief strategist and senior counselor, previously served as the site’s executive chairman.

The president-elect’s campaign drew consistent support from numerous conservative talk radio hosts and internet conspiracy theory sites, for instance Alex Jones’s InfoWars. During the campaign, Trump took the unprecedented step of appearing on Jones’s site, known as America’s foremost conservative conspiracy theory outlet. Jones has previously dismissed the Sandy Hook massacre, in which 20 elementary school students and six school staff were murdered, as “completely fake”, and has branded the September 11 terror attacks an “inside job”.

Trump was interviewed for around 30 minutes by Jones in December 2015, and later called Jones a “nice guy”. Jones claimed in November that Trump called him to thank him for his support after winning the presidential election.

With the mainstream media giddily reporting on an alleged affair involving Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, how long can it be before they break the news that their 2004 vice presidential candidate conceived a “love child” with his mistress, Rielle Hunter?

The left is trying to destroy Cain with a miasma of hazy accusations leveled by three troubled women. Considered individually, the accusations are utterly unbelievable. They are even less credible taken together. This is how liberals destroy a man, out of nothing.

After the first round of baseless accusations against Cain, an endless stream of pundits rolled out the cliché — as if it were the height of originality — “This isn’t he said-she said; it’s he-said, she-said, she-said, she-said, she–said.”

Au contraire: We had two “she’s” and only one “said.”

Remember? Only two women were willing to give their names. And as soon as they did, we discovered that they were highly suspicious accusers with nothing more than their personal honor to support the allegations. Only one of the two would even say what Cain allegedly did.

The first one was Sharon Bialek, who claimed that Cain grabbed her crotch in a car.

Then we found out Bialek was in constant financial trouble, had been involved in a paternity lawsuit, was known as a “gold digger,” had a string of debts and had twice filed for personal bankruptcy. Also, she admitted she knew Obama’s dirty tricks specialist, David Axelrod, from living in the same building with him.

Her personal history is relevant because she produced no evidence. We had to take her word. (Which was not helped by seeing her standing with Gloria Allred.)

The second one, Karen Kraushaar, made unspecified allegations of a “hostile environment” when she was working for Cain, but refuses to say what those allegations were. This despite the fact that the National Restaurant Association waived her confidentiality agreement, thus allowing her to go public.

That’s one “she,” but no “said.”

Cain said he had once told Kraushaar she was as tall as his wife — which would be one of the more worthy sexual harassment claims settled by an American company in recent years.

Why won’t she say? We’re not talking about rape. Kraushaar can’t say, “I don’t want to relive being told I was the same height as his wife!” With all the nonsense that passes for a “hostile environment,” either Kraushaar tells us what Cain allegedly did, or her blind accusation is worth less than nothing.

As if that weren’t enough, then it turned out that Kraushaar had also filed a complaint at her next job just three years later, charging that a manager had circulated a sexually explicit joke email comparing computers to men and women. She demanded a raise and the right to work at home.

Maybe Kraushaar is the most unlucky woman in the world. But the simpler explanation is that she is not a credible witness on the workplace atmosphere.

And now we have Ginger White stepping forward to claim that she had a 13-year affair with Cain. Cain admits he was friends with White, but he categorically, adamantly denies having an affair with her.

White has the whole combo-platter of questionable accuser attributes: She’s another financially troubled, twice-divorced, unemployed single mother, who has claimed sexual harassment in the past, declared bankruptcy once, was accused of stalking and had a libel judgment entered against her just this year. So far in 2011, she’s had nine liens put on her property.

But we’re supposed to ignore all of that because she’s the third woman of questionable character to make an implausible allegation. Liberals say there’s a pattern, but the only pattern is of their making far-fetched accusations of a sexual nature against Cain.

White’s proof that she had a 13-year affair is that she has two of Cain’s books signed by him – one with the incriminating inscription, “Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus,” and the other, “Miss G, you have already made a ‘big difference!’ Stay focused as you pursue your next destination.” (I know — filthy!)

If that’s proof of an affair, I’ve had thousands of them without even realizing it.

Also, White produced evidence that Cain had texted or called her cell phone 61 times during four non-consecutive months — but did not reveal what those texts said. (“Would you please return my lawn mower?”)

Again, if that’s proof of an affair, I’m having hundreds of them at this very moment.

This is the sort of evidence you get with an actual sexual predator: Bill Clinton’s accusers had gifts, taped phone conversations with him and a semen-stained dress.

Jennifer Flowers produced taped telephone calls withClintontotaling thousands of words between them, with him counseling her on how to deny their affair: “If they ever hit you with it, just say no, and go on. There’s nothing they can do … But when they — if somebody contacts you, I need to know … All you got to do is deny it.”

Paula Jones had multiple same-day witnesses – including the state troopers who worked forClintonand had already told the press about a “Paula” they brought toClinton’s hotel room. And that was for a single incident.

Monica Lewinsky had lots of gifts from Clinton, including a hat pin, two brooches, a marble bear figurine, a T-shirt from Martha’s Vineyard and Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass,” all of which she mysteriously placed with Clinton’s secretary, Betty Currie, during the investigation, as well as a semen-stained dress, which Monica kept.

Ginger White claims she had a 13-year affair with Cain — and all she has are two books with inscriptions that could have been written to an auto mechanic who waited in line at a Cain book signing. Even her business partner during the alleged affair says White never mentioned Cain’s name.

These women are like triple-A ball players with the stats being: number of bankruptcies, smallest bank account, number of liens, most false claims, number of children out of wedlock, degrees of separation from David Axelrod, total trips to human resources and so on.

That wouldn’t be dispositive — except for the fact that their only evidence is their word.

But this is how liberals dirty you up when they’ve got nothing: They launch a series of false accusations, knowing that Americans with busy lives won’t follow each story to the end and notice that they were all blind alleys.

The liberal media is an old story, but it’s still a big story when it comes to creating the impression of scandal out of thin air.

Most people say, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” I say, “Where there’s smoke around a conservative, there are journalists furiously rubbing two sticks together.”